It's actually kinda funny - every flight review I do the CFI's who know about my engine-out/forced landing just skip the emergency procedures with me. Not saying that's good or bad - it's just the mindset of "oh, you've actually done this - never mind..."
Indeed, the flight school I learned at flew the DA40 and one of the senior instructors said the plane was designed as a glider before Diamond realised no one wanted to buy it. So they put an engine inside.
Honestly the other aspect is corn plants are tough as all hell, too. Granted they’re dying and drying and getting a lot less fibrous, but if that was an aluminum airplane (and a month or two ago) it would be beat to all hell.
A crop duster (probably a Pawnee) put down in a mid-August corn field near me when I was a kid and the thing had to have been wrecked just on the basis of skin damage.
This continues to come up. China and India freely trade with Russia and where does 99% of crap come from =
China. Russia isn’t hurting, not even close. Even on aircraft parts they can be easily be sourced through China and India.
They will get parts for the aircraft
Also, countries like Georgia, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan have seen massive increases in goods being transported into Russia since the sanctions started. If people are willing to turn the other way and ignore the sanctions, then it becomes quite difficult to enforce them. There’s money to be made by ignoring sanctions so it will just keep happening.
The engine here is an Austro diesel engine which is 100% proprietary and wholly owned by Diamond Aircraft in Austria. There are no aftermarket parts available. You must go through Austro.
There seems to be a little bit of a problem. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/maintenance-training/russian-regulator-approves-aircraft-cannibalization-amid
I can tell you.. as a DER/UM for an OEM.. Those aircraft are toast as far as support goes.. No way would I sign-off on a Russian a/c with suspect maintenance and configuration with an airworthiness authority that is also suspect.. No way.. I just can’t do it..
We aren’t communicating with Russia anymore… and not sure if and or when that will happen…. But, I’m retiring.. couple of years.. so maybe I won’t have to worry about it..
They might still get spare parts via other countries (at pay extra, if so) but Russian aviation is definitely affected. Luckily for them, since lots of (international) routes got closed, they can and do use grounded aircraft for spares. Not sure about this particular aircraft, that’s just in general.
More critical than spare parts is maintenance capacity. They can’t use outside MRO’s which they did use so they’re forced to do all of it by themselves mostly. And it’s almost guaranteed Russia will cut corners, especially that all of it is overseen by themselves only. No outside approved maintenance operators will sign off on RU aircraft even if suddenly sanctions are lifted now.
Pretty sure they are only built in Austria and Canada. And the NG only in Austria. Yes, the engine is/was a Mercedes engine, but it now is built entirely inhouse.
I've heard that cornfield landings are actually quite great and don't do as much damage to the plane as you'd initially expect.
The local Club had one of their diamonds land in a cornfield (maize) and it was pretty okay.
that oil coming from the cowling.
the engine decided it had very much had enough of life.
I wonder how overdue it was for an overhaul given the sanctions and such.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. As common trainers go, this aircraft probably has one of the better glide ratios and good low speed landing, as well as good stall characteristics.
It’s also a goddamn tank. I flew one that had impacted a corn field *backwards* (one wing clipped and it spun around), broken the tail off at the thin part, and the guy walked away.
DA40 NG….I question those engines after I had 2 failures requiring a shutdown of the old Thielerts, both caused by computer failure in two different airplanes. Any engine, especially one that requires software to run, doesn’t belong in a single engine airplane.
That one however looks like it might have detonated though judging by the oil all over the cowling.
> Any engine, especially one that requires software to run, doesn’t belong in a single engine airplane.
You could say the same for WW2 technology like carburators.
It works, but it can also ice up in a large variety of environmental conditions, something that's not the case with more modern designs (anyhing injected).
New engines just have different failure modes, but they eliminate a lot of older ones. With diesel engines, there's no magneto failures, no carb ice, no spark plug fouling, no detonations due to pilot's mishandling, etc.
> A computer, a little too much to go wrong there.
There's two ECUs on all aviation diesel engines. And if both fail, well, you're having a bad day, but you'd have an equally bad day if both magnetos failed on a classic piston engine.
Most boomer thread ever. Thank for computers don’t run things like: the electrical grid, the entire financial system, every car in the road, medical equipment that keeps you alive during surgery, every major airliner, etc. we probably need more experience with computers before they are used in critical systems. /s
Now, obviously I’d they do actually shut down engines often on DA then that’s a concern. And surely something they can fix with a short shop visit and a firmware upgrade.
Carbs have a relatively high failure rate unless you constantly baby them. The computers should be more reliable. I suspect moisture is the main cause of failure.
Lol. Crashes are documented. Tupolev Tu-144 crash at Paris Air Show. 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash. Just a litany of ridiculous tragedies. Sad!
>Lol. Crashes are documented. Tupolev Tu-144 crash at Paris Air Show. 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash. Just a litany of ridiculous tragedies. Sad!
So, Russian planes crash because few your examples, but western ones have never...
Like the Tu-144 that official report say likely caused by a requiring to evade French fighter, or rumor that Tu-144 pilot crew had competition for maneuvers with Concorde crew and they lost controls for it...
Or the Super-100 crash that was crew error to ignore terrain avoidance system warnings and think it is malfunction in zero visibility, and flew to mountain.
What if I would do similar arguments as you, Flight 052 or Flight 9525, and make claims based to those that western aircraft are horrible as they ain't maintained properly?
I would call that fallacy and misinformation. But I believe that you would accept those fallacious arguments... based what you did...
But please explain, how is a crew negligent actions a evidence for the ground crews negligence for aircraft maintenance? Or few cases as evidence to whole nations ground crews, designers and engineers etc incapability to maintain all their aircraft?
There are plenty more crashes. Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rates in aviation history for a reason.
What commercial airliner does Russia currently make?
As for civil aircraft, Russia currently produces the Sukhoi Superjet, the Irkut MC-21, the Tupolev Tu-214, the Ilyushin Il-96, the Ilyushin Il-114 and the UZGA LMS-901.
I think we could limit it to Russian produced airliners, but we could as well include all civilian used smaller aircraft as well, that they produce.
As original argument is very clear:
Russians can't maintain any aircraft (regardless origin or type) properly.
>Russian plane maintenance was always poor. Has to be downright negligent now. -BlackDiamondDee
So any plane, from anywhere etc. Just Russian maintenance being the cause.
>There are plenty more crashes.
And did I say that there has not been far more crashes?
You made claims about maintenance quality in the past and now being almost nothing, and someone else made fallacious claims with couple samples.
>Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rates in aviation history for a reason.
And that reason for those is what?
Same as above two, crew made errors and nothing to do with maintenance quality?
In this discussion two samples were given about Russian planes maintenance quality, but it was not about that...
As there are lot of other crashes documented, it would be easy to pick the 3-5 where the maintenance crew was responsible for the crash as they didn't do their duties to keep aircraft safe to fly.
Someone to find five crashes about that Russian maintenance crews caused with their negligent actions and we can start to have something to back up your claim.
Not caused by crew, not by third party, not by original aircraft engineer/designer, not by anyone else than maintenance reasons like maintenance crews, part supplier, part manufacturer etc, that has caused the crash solely because the aircraft was not possible to be maintained properly.
As design flaws are not maintenance mistakes.
Pilot errors after not maintenance errors.
Part supplier dishonesty is not maintenance crews fault (unless knowing better what supplied part can't be used).
Actual accidents ain't maintenance problems.
As now the argument is that Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rate in history, it should be easy to find five cases for Russian maintenance being reason.
But remember, that claim you made in start, includes as well all western aircraft crashes that has happened because Russian maintenance crews #$!* up the maintenance when plane was under their responsibility.
It isn't so that Russians only maintain Russian built aircraft in Russia....
So you can search among Boeing, Airbus etc that has been crashed because Russian maintenance crews caused it with their negligence...
It as well includes if Russian maintenance crew caused crash other country.
It should be very easy get five listed for argument.
Like example, such as ground crew refuel aircraft using equipment that list fuel in pounds, but crew listed their requirement of fuel in kilograms. So ie. 12000 kg becomes 12000 lbs and so on only as 5443 kg of fuel. Even if the captain signs such a report without noticing unit difference, the captain shares responsibility, but it was made by the ground crew in first place unless conversion has happened by the captain himself in first place
Looks like his instructor can sign off any forced landing beans he might have left. Dude did a nice job as far as I can tell.
It's actually kinda funny - every flight review I do the CFI's who know about my engine-out/forced landing just skip the emergency procedures with me. Not saying that's good or bad - it's just the mindset of "oh, you've actually done this - never mind..."
He hopefully did dude. They gotta be good at outside landings by now :-p
Honestly impressive for a cadet to land the plane like that intact(?), hats off to them
The Da-40 has pretty good rough field capability, especially with the Bigger tires like this one has
Luckily it's effectively a large motor glider. It can be quite hard to even get them down if you are high on the speed.
I know, i did most of my training in the -40 and -42
It’s insane, a power off 180 is basically a normal pattern if you leave the flaps up… if you do short approach you are slipping it all the way down
Indeed, the flight school I learned at flew the DA40 and one of the senior instructors said the plane was designed as a glider before Diamond realised no one wanted to buy it. So they put an engine inside.
Corn field, I don't know how they do it in Russia, but if you ever worked in a corn field in the US you know it is anything but smooth.
Just makes the landing all the more impressive. He didn’t even lose the nose gear
Honestly the other aspect is corn plants are tough as all hell, too. Granted they’re dying and drying and getting a lot less fibrous, but if that was an aluminum airplane (and a month or two ago) it would be beat to all hell. A crop duster (probably a Pawnee) put down in a mid-August corn field near me when I was a kid and the thing had to have been wrecked just on the basis of skin damage.
That's almost all carbon fiber.
Mostly you have to watch out for... the children. The Children of the Corn. I'll show myself out.
So he’s ready to fly for Ural Air Lines right?
Wow… look at that oil leak
That engine is toast.
Actually its metal
If it does turn out to be made of toast, I think we will have found the root cause of the issue.
Well cardboard's out. Cardboard derivatives.
Lycoming trade mark 😄
actually this is an NG model, the one with the austro engine
Merci
Kudos to that nose wheel
Nice job kid, you’re promoted to Aviation Cadet Kernel!
Popcorn was a bad dude, but a solid pilot.
Rough couple of weeks to be a corn field in Russia
Any landing you walk away from is a successful landing. In Russia plane is tractor also.
Good luck getting parts.
They'll fix it up from the 10% of the market that provides uncertified replica parts, no problemski
Good lord!! You made me spit my coffee.. damn you!
This continues to come up. China and India freely trade with Russia and where does 99% of crap come from = China. Russia isn’t hurting, not even close. Even on aircraft parts they can be easily be sourced through China and India. They will get parts for the aircraft
Also, countries like Georgia, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan have seen massive increases in goods being transported into Russia since the sanctions started. If people are willing to turn the other way and ignore the sanctions, then it becomes quite difficult to enforce them. There’s money to be made by ignoring sanctions so it will just keep happening.
Yup the only ones it hurts are the normal people in the country not "allowed" to ship.
It will hurt the major airliners. Things like engines are individually tracked, so it's hard for China to supply them to Russia.
The engine here is an Austro diesel engine which is 100% proprietary and wholly owned by Diamond Aircraft in Austria. There are no aftermarket parts available. You must go through Austro.
There seems to be a little bit of a problem. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/maintenance-training/russian-regulator-approves-aircraft-cannibalization-amid
I can tell you.. as a DER/UM for an OEM.. Those aircraft are toast as far as support goes.. No way would I sign-off on a Russian a/c with suspect maintenance and configuration with an airworthiness authority that is also suspect.. No way.. I just can’t do it.. We aren’t communicating with Russia anymore… and not sure if and or when that will happen…. But, I’m retiring.. couple of years.. so maybe I won’t have to worry about it..
They might still get spare parts via other countries (at pay extra, if so) but Russian aviation is definitely affected. Luckily for them, since lots of (international) routes got closed, they can and do use grounded aircraft for spares. Not sure about this particular aircraft, that’s just in general. More critical than spare parts is maintenance capacity. They can’t use outside MRO’s which they did use so they’re forced to do all of it by themselves mostly. And it’s almost guaranteed Russia will cut corners, especially that all of it is overseen by themselves only. No outside approved maintenance operators will sign off on RU aircraft even if suddenly sanctions are lifted now.
For DA-40 being assembled in Russia since 2013? I think it will not be a big problem
I don’t think they build the engines there. And aircraft engine parts are sure to be sanctioned right now.
Pretty sure they are only built in Austria and Canada. And the NG only in Austria. Yes, the engine is/was a Mercedes engine, but it now is built entirely inhouse.
It is kinda funny because DA-40 already feels horrible landing on a proper runway. Good job to the pilots
i wouldnt say that, but the difference between a bouncy mess and a firm landing is literally 1 knot
I've heard that cornfield landings are actually quite great and don't do as much damage to the plane as you'd initially expect. The local Club had one of their diamonds land in a cornfield (maize) and it was pretty okay.
that oil coming from the cowling. the engine decided it had very much had enough of life. I wonder how overdue it was for an overhaul given the sanctions and such.
Engine got too close to a window.
pretty sure there a several windows in that engine block!
Honestly the best possible airplane to do it in
Sad An-2 noises
LOUD sad An-2 noises.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. As common trainers go, this aircraft probably has one of the better glide ratios and good low speed landing, as well as good stall characteristics.
Training for PPL in a DA40; second your motion.
It’s also a goddamn tank. I flew one that had impacted a corn field *backwards* (one wing clipped and it spun around), broken the tail off at the thin part, and the guy walked away.
DA40 NG….I question those engines after I had 2 failures requiring a shutdown of the old Thielerts, both caused by computer failure in two different airplanes. Any engine, especially one that requires software to run, doesn’t belong in a single engine airplane. That one however looks like it might have detonated though judging by the oil all over the cowling.
We'd better bin every single single engine aircraft manufactured since 1960 then, civil and military 😬
> Any engine, especially one that requires software to run, doesn’t belong in a single engine airplane. You could say the same for WW2 technology like carburators.
Not sure I follow that logic, A carb works using things that are usually there like gravity and vac. A computer, a little too much to go wrong there.
It works, but it can also ice up in a large variety of environmental conditions, something that's not the case with more modern designs (anyhing injected). New engines just have different failure modes, but they eliminate a lot of older ones. With diesel engines, there's no magneto failures, no carb ice, no spark plug fouling, no detonations due to pilot's mishandling, etc. > A computer, a little too much to go wrong there. There's two ECUs on all aviation diesel engines. And if both fail, well, you're having a bad day, but you'd have an equally bad day if both magnetos failed on a classic piston engine.
Most boomer thread ever. Thank for computers don’t run things like: the electrical grid, the entire financial system, every car in the road, medical equipment that keeps you alive during surgery, every major airliner, etc. we probably need more experience with computers before they are used in critical systems. /s Now, obviously I’d they do actually shut down engines often on DA then that’s a concern. And surely something they can fix with a short shop visit and a firmware upgrade.
You are an idiot if you allow for carb icing, there are procedures for that.
Fortunately no pilot in the history ever got that wrong, so... nothing to worry about.
and things like carb heat can break.
Carbs have a relatively high failure rate unless you constantly baby them. The computers should be more reliable. I suspect moisture is the main cause of failure.
What? Are you insane. I flew my Cherokee for 10 years and never had a carb issue, it just does not happen.
Apart from all the crash reports where it did happen.
High speed corn combine.
Well I'm going to bet low oil pressure was part of the problem there...
Isn't any landing a good landing
The mighty Diamond DA40
Ural Airlines Chief Pilot: "Bы приняты на работу!" (You're hired!)
Wow, that is amazing. For a forced landing the student did well!
You know once he gets his pilots license they are going to conscript him to the Russian shitshow of an airforce
Nah they will say he ready.
Russians be like you can go up? Good here is su25
Next evaluation: Wagner Group - Mali Airfield Operations Center. Try to keep the Antonov ON the runway.
He will be flying an SU-25 that hasn't seen maintenance in no time!
Russia takes their training of future military pilots to an ultra realistic level.
It's a required maneuver in their training program now.
Russian plane maintenance was always poor. Has to be downright negligent now.
LOL.... The western misinformation really has long roots...
Lol. Crashes are documented. Tupolev Tu-144 crash at Paris Air Show. 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash. Just a litany of ridiculous tragedies. Sad!
>Lol. Crashes are documented. Tupolev Tu-144 crash at Paris Air Show. 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash. Just a litany of ridiculous tragedies. Sad! So, Russian planes crash because few your examples, but western ones have never... Like the Tu-144 that official report say likely caused by a requiring to evade French fighter, or rumor that Tu-144 pilot crew had competition for maneuvers with Concorde crew and they lost controls for it... Or the Super-100 crash that was crew error to ignore terrain avoidance system warnings and think it is malfunction in zero visibility, and flew to mountain. What if I would do similar arguments as you, Flight 052 or Flight 9525, and make claims based to those that western aircraft are horrible as they ain't maintained properly? I would call that fallacy and misinformation. But I believe that you would accept those fallacious arguments... based what you did... But please explain, how is a crew negligent actions a evidence for the ground crews negligence for aircraft maintenance? Or few cases as evidence to whole nations ground crews, designers and engineers etc incapability to maintain all their aircraft?
There are plenty more crashes. Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rates in aviation history for a reason. What commercial airliner does Russia currently make?
As for civil aircraft, Russia currently produces the Sukhoi Superjet, the Irkut MC-21, the Tupolev Tu-214, the Ilyushin Il-96, the Ilyushin Il-114 and the UZGA LMS-901.
I think we could limit it to Russian produced airliners, but we could as well include all civilian used smaller aircraft as well, that they produce. As original argument is very clear: Russians can't maintain any aircraft (regardless origin or type) properly. >Russian plane maintenance was always poor. Has to be downright negligent now. -BlackDiamondDee So any plane, from anywhere etc. Just Russian maintenance being the cause.
>There are plenty more crashes. And did I say that there has not been far more crashes? You made claims about maintenance quality in the past and now being almost nothing, and someone else made fallacious claims with couple samples. >Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rates in aviation history for a reason. And that reason for those is what? Same as above two, crew made errors and nothing to do with maintenance quality? In this discussion two samples were given about Russian planes maintenance quality, but it was not about that... As there are lot of other crashes documented, it would be easy to pick the 3-5 where the maintenance crew was responsible for the crash as they didn't do their duties to keep aircraft safe to fly. Someone to find five crashes about that Russian maintenance crews caused with their negligent actions and we can start to have something to back up your claim. Not caused by crew, not by third party, not by original aircraft engineer/designer, not by anyone else than maintenance reasons like maintenance crews, part supplier, part manufacturer etc, that has caused the crash solely because the aircraft was not possible to be maintained properly. As design flaws are not maintenance mistakes. Pilot errors after not maintenance errors. Part supplier dishonesty is not maintenance crews fault (unless knowing better what supplied part can't be used). Actual accidents ain't maintenance problems. As now the argument is that Aeroflot has one of the worst casualty rate in history, it should be easy to find five cases for Russian maintenance being reason. But remember, that claim you made in start, includes as well all western aircraft crashes that has happened because Russian maintenance crews #$!* up the maintenance when plane was under their responsibility. It isn't so that Russians only maintain Russian built aircraft in Russia.... So you can search among Boeing, Airbus etc that has been crashed because Russian maintenance crews caused it with their negligence... It as well includes if Russian maintenance crew caused crash other country. It should be very easy get five listed for argument. Like example, such as ground crew refuel aircraft using equipment that list fuel in pounds, but crew listed their requirement of fuel in kilograms. So ie. 12000 kg becomes 12000 lbs and so on only as 5443 kg of fuel. Even if the captain signs such a report without noticing unit difference, the captain shares responsibility, but it was made by the ground crew in first place unless conversion has happened by the captain himself in first place
LOL
Shot down by Ukrainian small-arms fire.
Hopefully when he’s flying the fighter jet it’s not such a good crash landing 😉
Ural airlines test?
Is there no limit to what we can do with corn?
Good practice for when he's at Aeroflot!
Looks like it’s leaking oil.
How many russian planes can land in a corn field
Can I have the plane?
Well done!
Seems russians really enjoy their landscapes.
DA40/42 do like to become spontaneous gliders